What is the problem...can one define it? Let your voice be heard...

[deleted1116990]

Be wary of this calculation. A large academic place with decent payors may support a 500k salary on 2 consults/week. A community place with 80% Medicare and significant Medicaid or advantage plans as the leftovers may need 6 consults/week and no more than 4 weeks off a year to justify this.

Very fair point, which makes the 239k salary even more absurd.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[radoncftw]

Good question

Kansas is border state. They start over 400k
Maybe that’s a decent starting point ?

damn i should have applied there. that is >100k than junior faculty make where i train in the midwest. curious if that is KC mothership or salina KS or wherever they have satellites now.

 

[deleted1116990]

damn i should have applied there. that is >100k than junior faculty make where i train in the midwest. curious if that is KC mothership or salina KS or wherever they have satellites now.

Presumably not Iowa, where do you train in the midwest where junior faculty also make sub 300?!!

450k base before RVU bonus was pretty standard 4-5 years ago for the central square state academic satellite.
I think we are getting some pretty good data from this discussion that overtraining is flushing this specialty down the toilet.

 

[TheWallnerus]

Be wary of this calculation. A large academic place with decent payors may support a 500k salary on 2 consults/week. A community place with 80% Medicare and significant Medicaid or advantage plans as the leftovers may need 6 consults/week and no more than 4 weeks off a year to justify this.

The avg professional price Medicare pays per rad onc beneficiary is around $2000 (will be about what you get under APM too). Six consults a week at 80% Medicare would be 240 new Medicare consults per year (this is well above the national average of about 60-70 new Medicare consults per RO per year). Be that as it may... even lowballing it... $2000 times 240 = ~$500K. Now add at least $250K on top that for your other 20% of patients. (If you get $2500/pt, the math is ever better, etc etc.)

So we come up with a lowball conservative ~$750K total professional collections for 6 consults/week, 80% Medicare. And if you got paid <$300K... shameful. But for sure, 6 consults a week with almost all Medicare could justify a $240K salary. Or a $500K salary.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Presumably not Iowa, where do you train in the midwest where junior faculty also make sub 300?!!

450k base before RVU bonus was pretty standard 4-5 years ago for the central square state academic satellite.
I think we are getting some pretty good data from this discussion that overtraining is flushing this specialty down the toilet.

We have a couple data points here showing <300k salaries in mid west programs. Add Dan Spratt's "UofM docs now start at 300k so it's all good" post and I'm seeing a trend here.

I hope med students are seeing the same trend. Sub 300k salaries in rad onc are here y'all. Run. Don't walk.

 

[TheWallnerus]

We have a couple data points here showing <300k salaries in mid west programs. Add Dan Spratt's "UofM docs now start at 300k so it's all good" post and I'm seeing a trend here.

I hope med students are seeing the same trend. Sub 300k salaries in rad onc are here y'all. Run. Don't walk.

 

[BobbyHeenan]

One simple way to at least get an assessment of the lay of the land . When I was looking for jobs I tried to do this but it can be tricky:

1. What are the collections if you were collecting just your professional fees?
2. What is the pay?

If there's a HUUGE gap there....

 

[CaesarRO]

One simple way to at least get an assessment of the lay of the land . When I was looking for jobs I tried to do this but it can be tricky:

1. What are the collections if you were collecting just your professional fees?
2. What is the pay?

If there's a HUUGE gap there....View attachment 354602

Is there a way to get this information, other than having to ask the administrators directly?

 

[Mandelin Rain]

One simple way to at least get an assessment of the lay of the land . When I was looking for jobs I tried to do this but it can be tricky:

1. What are the collections if you were collecting just your professional fees?
2. What is the pay?

If there's a HUUGE gap there....View attachment 354602

Honestly, I'm not sure what is fair for the administrative overhead/med mal/billing/etc... that employment brings vs what you'd pay for in PP.

15%? More? Less?

 

[metallica81788]

Is there a way to get this information, other than having to ask the administrators directly?

I'm doubtful of receiving a straight answer if I directly asked my administrators this

 

[TheWallnerus]

I'm doubtful of receiving a straight answer if I directly asked my administrators this

And they actually know the answer to at least 4 significant digits

 

[deleted1116990]

One simple way to at least get an assessment of the lay of the land . When I was looking for jobs I tried to do this but it can be tricky:

1. What are the collections if you were collecting just your professional fees?
2. What is the pay?

If there's a HUUGE gap there....View attachment 354602

Agree, but I have never had a conversation with a hospital or academic practice that involved using the C-word that did not immediately result in an attempt to change the topic. Literally not once. Definitely not being successful in getting anything close to a verifiable answer. Only seen this discussed on the private side, and even that's not easy. Employers won't discuss it in my experience and I am confident I have not received an offer because I brought it up at at least once place. We know why they keep that data locked down in the vault next to the chargemaster that nobody is supposed to know about either.

I still do it anyway.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

There is some solid advice being given here folks! Bottoms line, know your worth.

 

[thecarbonionangle]

One simple way to at least get an assessment of the lay of the land . When I was looking for jobs I tried to do this but it can be tricky:

1. What are the collections if you were collecting just your professional fees?
2. What is the pay?

If there's a HUUGE gap there....View attachment 354602

The issue is almost nobody knows how much they collect. There is no transparency about this in many places.

 

[jondunn]

The issue is almost nobody knows how much they collect. There is no transparency about this in many places.

I think a lot of people have some sense of them. I know my collections.

If you don't ask, you won't know.

if you don't know your collections, at the very BARE minimum, every rad onc should know how many RVUs theyre doing. Not knowing this is tantamount to going on a road trip and having no clue how much gas they have left or where they are supposed to go. flying blind.

 

[BobbyHeenan]

Honestly, I'm not sure what is fair for the administrative overhead/med mal/billing/etc... that employment brings vs what you'd pay for in PP.

15%? More? Less?

Yeah - I think that’s a decent estimate. Can probably be up or down depending on a number of factors (billing %, med mal, admin support staff and how much you want to pay them, mid levels you may want/need, accountants, etc). But that’s a pretty good ball park.

 

[BobbyHeenan]

The issue is almost nobody knows how much they collect. There is no transparency about this in many places.

That’s a feature not a bug.

 

[CaesarRO]

I think a lot of people have some sense of them. I know my collections.

If you don't ask, you won't know.

if you don't know your collections, at the very BARE minimum, every rad onc should know how many RVUs theyre doing. Not knowing this is tantamount to going on a road trip and having no clue how much gas they have left or where they are supposed to go. flying blind.

RVUs are much easier to get. I just don't trust there is much correlation between RVUs and collections and would be much interested in the discrepancy. I just don't think I'll ever find out

 

[jondunn]

RVUs are much easier to get. I just don't trust there is much correlation between RVUs and collections and would be much interested in the discrepancy. I just don't think I'll ever find out

agree, much easier to get. but you should have knowledge of your RVUs at a bare minimum. Believe it or not there are some who have no clue what their productivity is.

 

[thecarbonionangle]

RVUs are much easier to get. I just don't trust there is much correlation between RVUs and collections and would be much interested in the discrepancy. I just don't think I'll ever find out

To me RVUs just seem like another disgusting way to conflate the truth and pull wool over our heads to make it harder to understand

 

[deleted1111261]

To me RVUs just seem like another disgusting way to conflate the truth and pull wool over our heads to make it harder to understand

This is the facts

 

[jondunn]

To me RVUs just seem like another disgusting way to conflate the truth and pull wool over our heads to make it harder to understand

what truth? would you rather have zero clue how 'hard' you work or some clue?

 

[RadOncDoc21]

I used to track my RVU’s but soon realized I would never get enough to get near a bonus and also realized no matter how hard I thought I worked, it was never enough so I just stopped caring and life got much easier.

 

[radoncftw]

I'd say junior faculty making <300k are the ones subsidizing the senior faculty probably making double.

I have also talked to faculty (both junior and senior) that have told me that it is VERY difficult to get accurate #s on their productivity. I have a very anal type attending who told me that the report generated by the MBA admin in our department was actually incorrect and that they did not want the faculty to know the true number.

 

[CaesarRO]

I guess I'll count myself lucky then that I have a fairly transparent department on that front. Also I'm at a shop that uses mosaiq and there is a code summary menu that shows you all the codes dropped for each pt or for the dept on a given day. It would be a lot of work but if motivated you should be able to "audit" them

 

[thecarbonionangle]

I guess I'll count myself lucky then that I have a fairly transparent department on that front. Also I'm at a shop that uses mosaiq and there is a code summary menu that shows you all the codes dropped for each pt or for the dept on a given day. It would be a lot of work but if motivated you should be able to "audit" them

im curious how to find this summary. Any directions to it?

 

[deleted1111261]

Banner and MC both gave us detailed RVU summaries every month.

 

[CaesarRO]

im curious how to find this summary. Any directions to it?

In the top menu, I've got File, Schedule, eChart, Tools and "Code Mgmt"

Under "Code Mgmt" there are options to select "Patient Code Summary" which shows all the codes dropped for the active patient and "Daily Code Summary" which shows all the codes dropped for the department in a given date range.

Breaks down by CPT code and even Prof/Technical but no summary function in my set up.

Hopefully this isn't configuration dependent.

 

[jondunn]

To be clear - I am not saying that RVUs tell the whole story or are necessarily the right way for a department to track how much work each person is doing.

But it’s kind of the best we got. One of my friends found out what his RVUs were after asking and they were very high and he was able to use them to help negotiate.

If you don’t know them or have never seen them - this really is not right or fair to you. If you’re employed, it’s the only thing you got.

That’s all I’m saying

 

[medgator]

@Dan Spratt, I think this is an important issue, but probably not in the way that the framing of your question suggests...

By openly embracing the worldview of the DEI agenda, which encompasses a rather eccentric set of inflexible political beliefs about race, sex, identity, and intersectional oppression that has only gained purchase in elite circles relatively recently (over the past ~5-7 years), rad onc leadership has increasingly politicized its venerable institutions and alienated a substantial portion of its workforce from those institutions.

The emblematic example, of course, is that ASTRO invited Dr. Ibram X. Kendi to give a keynote address at the 2020 annual meeting. People who are familiar with Kendi are aware that his ideas are pretty extreme and probably even outside of the mainstream among most social progressives - e.g., Kendi has famously suggested that the only remedy for past discrimination is current discrimination, he has suggested that the only cause of disparities is racism and to even discuss or investigate other contributing causes is itself evidence of racism (it should go without saying, but this is an unscientific and counterproductive position), and he has made highly controversial public comments such as impugning the motives of a supreme court nominee for having adopted black children. Anecdotally, I have heard multiple rad oncs express how surprising, inappropriate, and alienating this politically motivated decision was on the part of ASTRO. However, if ASTRO was really interested in having an open dialogue about race, a debate or follow up invitation the next year to another intellectual who holds different views as a counterpoint to Kendi's might be interesting - there are, in fact, many prominent black intellectuals who disagree with Kendi's assessments and prescriptions on race in America - e.g., Coleman Hughes, John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Thomas Sowell, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Kmele Foster, Wilfred Reilly, Chloe Valdary, etc, etc. But I don't think that anyone really believes that ASTRO is interested in a diversity of viewpoints and open dialogue. Similarly, as has been mentioned in other posts and I won't belabor, other rad onc institutions such as the Red J has increasingly pushed this particular worldview and, of course, academic training programs have fully embraced the DEI agenda.

The grift must continue. 30+ unfilled spots must be addressed through anything but contraction.

Warm bodies must come from somewhere, hence to pivot to DEI now, culminating in things like paid medical student summer stints in various rad onc depts which have been getting broadcast on Twitter lately. Some appear to be targeted, some don't.

Medical Scholars Program to Conduct Paid 2 month Research Related to Oncology for Medical Students 2021/2022

Emory University School of Medicine Department of Radiation Oncology Medical Student Scholars Program Purpose The Department of Radiation Oncology at Emory University strives to promote clinical, basic science, and medical physics research by attracting the best and brightest medical students...

forums.studentdoctor.net

 

[fiji128]

@Dan Spratt, I think this is an important issue, but probably not in the way that the framing of your question suggests...

By openly embracing the worldview of the DEI agenda, which encompasses a rather eccentric set of inflexible political beliefs about race, sex, identity, and intersectional oppression that has only gained purchase in elite circles relatively recently (over the past ~5-7 years), rad onc leadership has increasingly politicized its venerable institutions and alienated a substantial portion of its workforce from those institutions.

Great post. This view point is probably reflective of the great majority of membership. As Astro continues to travel down this path, guided by their built in echo chamber, they will only continue to lose creditability of what is supposed to be a professional society.

 

[thecarbonionangle]

“I know you are a new chair but your program was on SOAP and you filled all spots with warm bodies and we all know it”
“Dont worry with my amazing leadership and great team we have fixed the issues”
“Ok cool great to hear, guess there is nothing else we can do, lets go eat and drink”
*Fat chair loosens belt and tie

 

[fiji128]

“I know you are a new chair but your program was on SOAP and you filled both spots with warm bodies and we all know it”
“Dont worry with my amazing leadership and great team we have fixed the issues”
“Ok cool great to hear, guess there is nothing else we can do, lets go eat and drink”
*Fat chair loosens belt and tie

Case Western Reserve increased their official resident compliment from 6 to 7 between 2019 to 2021. Case Western did not match in 2019 for 2 and in 2020 for 1 position. They currently have 7 total residents enrolled for 7 total position. I will say all of these shenanigans took place prior to Spratt becoming chair. That being said, do I think Case Western will be reducing their resident compliment anytime in the near future for the health of the specialty? I think we know the answer to that one.

 

[thecarbonionangle]

Case Western Reserve increased their official resident compliment from 6 to 7 between 2019 to 2021. Case Western did not match in 2019 for 2 and in 2020 for 1 position. They currently have 7 total residents enrolled for 7 total position. I will say all of these shenanigans took place prior to Spratt becoming chair. That being said, do I think Case Western will be reducing their resident compliment anytime in the near future for the health of the specialty? I think we know the answer to that one.

Like i said, him and his hellpit buddies who were recently on SOAP have decisions to make. Do not hold your breath folks!

 

[TheWallnerus]

The grift must continue. 30+ unfilled spots must be addressed through anything but contraction.

Warm bodies must come from somewhere, hence to pivot to DEI now, culminating in things like paid medical student summer stints in various rad onc depts which have been getting broadcast on Twitter lately. Some appear to be targeted, some don't.

Medical Scholars Program to Conduct Paid 2 month Research Related to Oncology for Medical Students 2021/2022

Emory University School of Medicine Department of Radiation Oncology Medical Student Scholars Program Purpose The Department of Radiation Oncology at Emory University strives to promote clinical, basic science, and medical physics research by attracting the best and brightest medical students...

forums.studentdoctor.net

CRT has encouraged and fostered minority participation in rad onc since he became a rad onc in 1998. Has always spoken, but never ostentatiously, about needing more minority and female faculty and chairs. Stipends are a new thing though!

For many in rad onc, Charles Thomas included, their hearts are in a good place and they think they are doing a good thing/God's work by speaking out for their specialty and encouraging diverse med student participation in the specialty. They may NEVER see the "harm" (relative term) they are doing because their hearts are so good. This is a "problem" that's almost unfixable...

 

[RickyScott]

@Dan Spratt, I think this is an important issue, but probably not in the way that the framing of your question suggests...

By openly embracing the worldview of the DEI agenda, which encompasses a rather eccentric set of inflexible political beliefs about race, sex, identity, and intersectional oppression that has only gained purchase in elite circles relatively recently (over the past ~5-7 years), rad onc leadership has increasingly politicized its venerable institutions and alienated a substantial portion of its workforce from those institutions.

The emblematic example, of course, is that ASTRO invited Dr. Ibram X. Kendi to give a keynote address at the 2020 annual meeting. People who are familiar with Kendi are aware that his ideas are pretty extreme and probably even outside of the mainstream among most social progressives - e.g., Kendi has famously suggested that the only remedy for past discrimination is current discrimination, he has suggested that the only cause of disparities is racism and to even discuss or investigate other contributing causes is itself evidence of racism (it should go without saying, but this is an unscientific and counterproductive position), and he has made highly controversial public comments such as impugning the motives of a supreme court nominee for having adopted black children. Anecdotally, I have heard multiple rad oncs express how surprising, inappropriate, and alienating this politically motivated decision was on the part of ASTRO. However, if ASTRO was really interested in having an open dialogue about race, a debate or follow up invitation the next year to another intellectual who holds different views as a counterpoint to Kendi's might be interesting - there are, in fact, many prominent black intellectuals who disagree with Kendi's assessments and prescriptions on race in America - e.g., Coleman Hughes, John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Thomas Sowell, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Kmele Foster, Wilfred Reilly, Chloe Valdary, etc, etc. But I don't think that anyone really believes that ASTRO is interested in a diversity of viewpoints and open dialogue. Similarly, as has been mentioned in other posts and I won't belabor, other rad onc institutions such as the Red J has increasingly pushed this particular worldview and, of course, academic training programs have fully embraced the DEI agenda.

So why would anyone have a problem with these well-intentioned infusions of political activism into our institutions? I am a classical liberal, which means I believe in a set of core values that include treating people as individuals, equality of opportunity, due process and fair treatment for all (without respect to a person's identity characteristics), and advancement based on individual merit. I also believe in being tolerant of other people's views, free speech, and open scientific inquiry. I reject treating people differently based on their identity characteristics - full stop. I am in favor of outreach and efforts to improves the attractiveness of our field to more diverse candidates and I support open inquiry regarding unequal health outcomes and addressing underlying causes. However, my worldview as a classical liberal is fundamentally incompatible with a DEI informed worldview that prioritizes group rights over individual rights, equity (i.e., guaranteed equal outcomes, which often necessitates unequal treatment) over equality, collective guilt based on identity characteristics, and race and identity essentialism (i.e., the idea that race or other identity characteristics determine one's abilities, interests, personal characteristics, or moral standing). I also reject the a priori assumption that unequal outcomes can only be caused by discrimination...as scientists we know that correlation is not causation and that a priori mono-causal explanations represent ideological/political/religious commitments, not science. The rigidity of the DEI worldview and its tendency toward intolerance of diverse and dissenting viewpoints can prevent people from openly studying and understanding the causes of important problems, which is a prerequisite to solving them. Tolerance and promotion of viewpoint diversity is a core liberal and scientific value that supports the progress of knowledge and guards against the formation of collective blind spots - including blind spots on complex social issues where the DEI agenda is concerned. Unfortunately, proponents of the DEI informed worldview, like Kendi, so often characterize dissenting viewpoints as evidence of privilege, bigotry, ignorance, etc in order to shut down (rather than promote) an open discussion from varying perspectives.

I am just one person - but I have felt alienated by the increasing politicization of rad onc institutions over the past several years. My sincerely held classical liberal views, which, by the way, were basically mainstream and readily defended on both the center left and center right as of 5-10 years ago, are no longer welcome among the leadership and institutions of our field, which has collectively decided to outsource its moral reasoning to the progressive DEI agenda. I cannot quote you data on percentages, but I suspect that there are many other rad oncs who are turned off by the ongoing politicization of our institutions.

In his famous speech, @RealSimulD asked big rad onc to stop injecting politics into our organizations. "We’re upset that you bring politics into every aspect of our being, instead of focusing on advocacy for cancer patients and cancer physicians. Why are we getting involved in congressional bickering and angering our members who just want an advocacy group that advocates for cancer care? We want a break from the culture wars." (Transcription of Dr. Parikh's speech). He was right and I am confident that he will be ignored.

Individuals in leadership positions are, of course, welcome to hold whatever political, ideological, and religious commitments that they like, but they should also have some intellectual humility, tolerance, and respect for the reality that many (and, in fact, probably most) people will not see the world through their preferred political lens. There are many people who care about complex social issues, but who also have different perspectives and policy preferences that they have come to honestly. The more that rad onc institutions are politicized and cater to a specific set of political views and interests, the more they will alienate a substantial segment of their current and future workforce.

“capitalism and racism are conjoined twins” kendi

 

[RickyScott]

CRT has encouraged and fostered minority participation in rad onc since he became a rad onc in 1998. Has always spoken, but never ostentatiously, about needing more minority and female faculty and chairs. Stipends are a new thing though!

For many in rad onc, Charles Thomas included, their hearts are in a good place and they think they are doing a good thing/God's work by speaking out for their specialty and encouraging diverse med student participation in the specialty. They may NEVER see the "harm" (relative term) they are doing because their hearts are so good. This is a "problem" that's almost unfixable...

I agree, but there are some younger faculty whose focus/advocacy here is probably more for career advancement.

 

[deleted1111261]

I agree, but there are some younger faculty whose focus/advocacy here is probably more for career advancement.

I don’t think Dr. Thomas tactics are same as what Kendi says. There is a difference between intentionally choosing a diverse workforce vs actively discriminating.

 

[thecarbonionangle]

“capitalism and racism are conjoined twins” kendi

Wasnt it the capitalism which allowed their bodies to be sold as property? It was that disassociation from morality which he could be referring to. Is he wrong? Anything to make a buck?

 

[medgator]

I agree, but there are some younger faculty whose focus/advocacy here is probably more for career advancement.

It's either about DEI or cutting fractions. Not much else

 

[OTN]

Wasnt it the capitalism which allowed their bodies to be sold as property? It was that disassociation from morality which he could be referring to. Is he wrong? Anything to make a buck?

Slavery is also a thing in collectivist countries. See: China, right now.

 

[RickyScott]

Wasnt it the capitalism which allowed their bodies to be sold as property? It was that disassociation from morality which he could be referring to. Is he wrong? Anything to make a buck?

Including the 50k+ speaker fee he charged astro

 

[thecarbonionangle]

Slavery is also a thing in collectivist countries. See: China, right now.

Again are you ignoring my point, the classic what about ism what about the chinese? You can do better. Not entertained gif.

POC were told capitalism would lift them out of poverty and they build wealth In Tulsa and society went in and slaughtered them and prevented them from living in good places through redlining and lending discrimination. I think many people on here frankly do not understand these issues

 

[communitydoc13]

The rigidity of the DEI worldview

How many rigid DEI types who shout you down do you encounter? What sort of victimization do you experience?

I could give a damn about having to spend a very small amount of my time on diversity training. Where I'm working, it's absolutely necessary.

I have heard of faculty meetings or admin meetings where things like, "we are not hiring another cis-male admin" have been bandied about. But this was a very liberal art school without a lot of diversity in admin. A bad take, I agree, but doesn't affect me personally.

I have been victimized essentially none by DEI initiatives. I'm a big, fat, white, cis dude. Fat is the new orange BTW!

Now, I agree, it's disheartening to see an appeal to diversity emerge in a field where med student interest should be low globally, and in a job market where jobs in diverse urban communities (which most of us want regardless of race or gender) are very hard to come by and are paying low.

I agree that when I see radoncs appeal to diversity research or disparity research for academic traction, while working at institutions that charge prohibitively, it is not impressive. (Although impressive on these issues means policy and likely pay cuts across the board, real personal sacrifice type stuff).

But I would put any political concerns as very low on the list of problems that radonc has. It's the overtraining, the resultant job market, and the rapid diminishment in prominence as medical oncology blossoms.

 

[jondunn]

I don’t think Dr. Thomas tactics are same as what Kendi says. There is a difference between intentionally choosing a diverse workforce vs actively discriminating.

Depending on who is looking at it - anytime race is part of intentionally choosing a diverse workforce, there will be people that call that active discrimination.

Look at the affirmative action court cases - that's what the argument people have is.

I disagree, but that's the opposing view - that affirmative action is discrimination.

 

[jondunn]

As usual CommunityDoc nails it.

 

[OTN]

Again are you ignoring my point, the classic what about ism what about the chinese? You can do better. Not entertained gif.

POC were told capitalism would lift them out of poverty and they build wealth In Tulsa and society went in and slaughtered them and prevented them from living in good places through redlining and lending discrimination. I think many people on here frankly do not understand these issues

I am fully aware of the Tulsa Massacre and the history of racism in this country. The insinuation always amongst the woke is that racism is fundamentally tied into capitalism. My point is that racism/slavery/etc are fundamental evils of humanity and can exist no matter the social structure/institutions in place.

 

[deleted1116990]

To me RVUs just seem like another disgusting way to conflate the truth and pull wool over our heads to make it harder to understand

I'm dating myself, but when I first heard about how most rad oncs get paid via RVUs instead of collections, I immediately thought of this.

"It's like regular money, but it's... fun"

 

[radoncftw]

How many rigid DEI types who shout you down do you encounter? What sort of victimization do you experience?

I could give a damn about having to spend a very small amount of my time on diversity training. Where I'm working, it's absolutely necessary.

I have heard of faculty meetings or admin meetings where things like, "we are not hiring another cis-male admin" have been bandied about. But this was a very liberal art school without a lot of diversity in admin. A bad take, I agree, but doesn't affect me personally.

I have been victimized essentially none by DEI initiatives. I'm a big, fat, white, cis dude. Fat is the new orange BTW!

Now, I agree, it's disheartening to see an appeal to diversity emerge in a field where med student interest should be low globally, and in a job market where jobs in diverse urban communities (which most of us want regardless of race or gender) are very hard to come by and are paying low.

I agree that when I see radoncs appeal to diversity research or disparity research for academic traction, while working at institutions that charge prohibitively, it is not impressive. (Although impressive on these issues means policy and likely pay cuts across the board, real personal sacrifice type stuff).

But I would put any political concerns as very low on the list of problems that radonc has. It's the overtraining, the resultant job market, and the rapid diminishment in prominence as medical oncology blossoms.

maybe we need a "rooney rule". I am all about diversity training, but I find it somewhat laughable that we undergo diversity training but then all of the department leadership are essentially old white men (sometimes white women). I think if diversity was a focus, then institutions would actually show this by hiring and retaining a diverse workforce. i don't see that happening often.

 

[jondunn]

maybe we need a "rooney rule". I am all about diversity training, but I find it somewhat laughable that we undergo diversity training but then all of the department leadership are essentially old white men (sometimes white women). I think if diversity was a focus, then institutions would actually show this by hiring and retaining a diverse workforce. i don't see that happening often.

Well they would argue that to have more diverse people in leadership you need more diversity in training.